Subj : Another Test from ProBoard
To   : Wilfred van Velzen
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Thu Nov 04 2021 12:29:19

Hello Wilfred,

On Thursday November 04 2021 10:50, you wrote to me:

 JB>>>>> @DATE: 01 Jan 70  00:00:00
 MvdV>>>>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 WV>>> On some of his test messages the date in my JAM message base was
 WV>>> set
 WV>>> to: "2070-01-01 00:00:00". So they didn't end up in my BAD
 WV>>> area...

 MvdV>> Odd. I did not see dates im 2070.

Coming to think of it, Fidonet did not exist in 1970, so 1970 on a idonet message is defintely wrong. It does make sense to interprate two digit years < 84 as 20xx. But then dates in the future do not make sense either for Fidonet messages. Perhaps Fmail should treat messages with dates in the future as BAD too. With a bit of leeway for time zone differences and klock abreations. Let's say 48 hours in the future.

Then again 1 jan 1970 00:00:00 is the Unix date set to zero, so that is an error different from "too old" or "in the future".

 WV> Maybe it's a difference between the linux 64 bit version and the
 WV> windows 32 version you are using? But I will have to "study" the
 WV> source code for this...

I can't rule it out...

 WV>>> How is your FMail configured regarding this? Mine: "Old message
 WV>>> (days)   62"

 MvdV>> Set to 30 days here.

 WV> I don't think that can explain the difference in behaviour we see...

I agree, that is unlikely.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
 * Origin: ZC1 certified techno-dick (2:280/5555)

.